I just don't see how destroying them in this case has anything to do with that argument. It is ok to destroy a gun. In this case I support destroying them in order to make a symbolic action to support the families of the victims. And if I want to destroy my own guns as my own property, that's ok too. And if the government wants go destroy weapons after all evidentiary uses are done from a serious crime, that's ok too. Not as if we have a shortage of guns, if anything a surplus. So I'm confused by this worship of a tool as some sort of special object that should not be destroyed.
Did you read the article? Not all the victims families support destroying the guns.
It sounds like the shooters estate will be divided amongst the families of those killed. Why not give them the guns to to do with what they wish?